This
matter having come before the Court by way of referral from
the Honorable Susan D. Wigenton to issue a report and
recommendation regarding the Plaintiff's, Peter Triestman
(“Triestman”), Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 7 and
17) and Defendants', Deborah Tuerkheimer
(“Tuerkheimer”) and Slate Group LLC (“Slate
Group”), Opposition (ECF No. 14). The Court declined to
hear oral argument pursuant to Rule 78 and as set forth more
fully below, the Court recommends the Motion to Dismiss be
GRANTED.

FACTS

Plaintiff
filed this action on October 12, 2017 alleging claims of
defamation, per se libel, and false light invasion of privacy
against Ms. Tuerkheimer and Slate. (Complaint, ECF No. 1,
¶ 1.) Peter Triestman is a New Jersey resident and
Deborah Tuerkheimer is a resident of the State of Illinois.
(Complaint, ¶ 4-5.) Slate Group manages Slate.com, an
online daily magazine. The company was incorporated in
Delaware and has offices in Washington, D.C. and New York.
(Id. ¶ 6.)

Triestman's
claims stem from an online story published by Slate Group on
October 16, 2016 entitled, “Donald Trump's Sexual
Misconduct Is an Outrage. Is it a Crime?” (henceforth
“the Article”). (Complaint, ¶ 10.) The
Article focused on allegations lodged by women against Donald
Trump focusing on male perpetrators who go unpunished for
“egregious conduct that subject[s] women to sexual
objectification, degradation, and harassment.”
(Id. ¶ 10.) Triestman was cited as an example
of a man that was convicted of criminal sexual conduct and a
link to the opinion of the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Appellate Division was included in the seventh paragraph.
(Id. ¶ 38.) The Appellate Division opinion
noted that while a grand jury had indicted Peter Triestman
for fourth-degree criminal sexual contact the trial court
erroneously denied Triestman's motion to dismiss the
indictment. (Id. ¶ 39.) The Complaint alleges
that the assertions that Triestman was convicted of criminal
sexual conduct is false and libelous on its face.
(Id. ¶ 42-3.)

SUMMARY
OF ARGUMENTS

Defendants
move to dismiss this case for lack of personal jurisdiction
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Article, Defendants argue,
“was written in D.C. and Illinois by an Illinois
resident, and published by Slate from its New York
Office.” (Brief, ECF No. 7-10, at 1.) Tuerkheimer
“did not call, contact, or quote any sources in New
Jersey for the Article.” (Id.) Defendants
argue that neither have “any connection to New Jersey,
let alone the systematic and continuous contacts
required” for general personal jurisdiction.
(Id.) Additionally, the Defendants did not
“purposefully direct[] their activities at New Jersey
such that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction over
them is proper.” (Id.)

Defendants
further allege that the Article was not published with
“actual malice” but rather that Tuerkheimer
“made a mistake.” (Brief, at 10-11.) The Article
indicated that Plaintiff was convicted of criminal sexual
contact when in fact, he pled guilty to a lesser offense.
(Brief, at 11.) Defendants corrected the Article removing all
references to Plaintiff. According to Defendants
“speech addressing matters of public concern . . . is
afforded the protections of the actual malice standard”
and Plaintiff has not pled sufficient facts to meet that
threshold. (Id.)

Alternatively,
Plaintiff believes “New Jersey's long arm
jurisdiction confers in personam jurisdiction upon
defendants.” (Opp. Brief, ECF No. 14-7, at 6.) Specific
personal jurisdiction should apply because the Article
“was drawn from New Jersey sources and targeted New
Jersey voters” as well as Plaintiff who “was a
resident of New Jersey and harmed in New Jersey.”
(Id.) Triestman further argues that general
jurisdiction exists based on “Defendants continuous and
systematic contacts with New Jersey.” (Id. at
7.) Plaintiff proposes that if there is not enough evidence
to convince the Court then further discovery can be done to
obtain “the number of New Jersey residents that
defendants . . . targeted” and reached. (Id.)

DISCUSSION

The
Court need not reach the 12(b)(6) motion because Plaintiff
has failed to make out a prima facie case for specific or
general personal jurisdiction. Once Defendant moves to
dismiss under 12(b)(2) the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show
sufficient contacts exist with the forum to justify the
Court's assertion of either general or specific personal
jurisdiction. See BP Chemicals Ltd. v. Formosa Chemical
& Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 259 (3d Cir. 2000).

Specific
personal jurisdiction exists “when the defendant has
purposefully directed his activities at residents of the
forum and the litigation results from alleged injuries that
arise out of or related to those activities.”
Id. (citing Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985)). For specific jurisdiction the
inquiry focuses on “whether the defendant purposefully
established minimum contacts in the forum.” Burger
King Corp., 471 U.S. at 474. It is a question of
foreseeability under the due process clause of the
constitution. Was the defendants' conduct and connection
with the forum such that they could “reasonably
anticipate being haled into court there.”
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S.
286, 295 (1980).[1] The “relationship must arise out of
contacts that the defendant himself creates with the
forum” and “analyzed with regard to the
defendant's contacts with the forum itself, not with
persons residing there.” Specifically, “[t]he
plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and
the forum.” Walden v. Fiore, 134 S.Ct. 1115,
1118 (2014).

The
Third Circuit has ruled that to show specific personal
jurisdiction of defendants the Court should apply the
“effect test” outlined by the Supreme Court in
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). The
“effects test” requires a showing that: (1) the
defendant committed an intentional tort; (2) the plaintiff
felt the brunt of the harm in the forum; and (3) the
defendant specifically aimed the tortious conduct at the
forum. Remick v. Manfredy, 238 F.3d 248, 258 (3d
Cir. 2001). Courts in the Third Circuit apply the test
narrowly and “at a minimum” Plaintiff must show
that “defendants expressly aimed their conduct”
at New Jersey. Marks v. Alfa Grp., 369 Fed.Appx.
368, 370 (3d Cir. 2010).

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Plaintiff
has the burden of establishing specific personal jurisdiction
under the &ldquo;effects test&rdquo; and has failed to put
forth enough evidence to make his case. There is no evidence
in the record indicating Defendants purposefully targeted New
Jersey for this publication or that this publication was
primarily or substantially distributed in New Jersey compared
to other states. Unlike in Calder-where the
Enquirer had its largest circulation in the
forum-state-Slate&#39;s publication is disseminated online.
&ldquo;[T]he fact that the [article was] eventually seen by
the Plaintiff in New Jersey is insufficient to confer
personal jurisdiction over the Plaintiff.&rdquo; DeRosa
v. McKenzie, No. 2:16-CV-07516, 2017 WL 1170827, at *6
(D.N.J. Mar. 27, 2017). The Article was written in Illinois
and D.C. and at no point did Defendant conduct any
investigation or conduct ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.